Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration in the Northeast: Quantities and Costs

Transcription

1 Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration in the Northeast: Quantities and Costs Part 6. Comparison of terrestrial carbon mitigation options in the northeast United States By Walker, S.M., S. Grimland, N. Sampson, B. Sohngen, J. Winsten, J., and S. Brown Submitted 27 by Sandra Brown, Co-Principal Investigator 1621 N. Kent St., Suite 12 Arlington, VA 2229, USA Telephone: Report Collaborators: Sarah Murdock, The Nature Conservancy Sandra Brown, Winrock International Neil Sampson, The Sampson Group Bill Stanley, The Nature Conservancy Report Submitted to US DOE-NETL Cooperative Agreement DE-FC26-1NT41151

2 DISCLAIMER Prepared with the support of the U.S. Department of Energy, under Award No. DE-FC26-1NT41151;Heino Beckert project manager; Bill Stanley and Sandra Brown, Co-Principle Investigators. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government of any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. Cite report as: Comparison of terrestrial carbon mitigation options in the northeast United States in. 27. Walker, S.M., S. Grimland, N. Sampson, B. Sohngen, J. Winsten, J., and S. Brown. in: Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration in the Northeast: Quantities and Costs. Winrock International, The Nature Conservancy, and The Sampson Group. Report to: US DOE-NETL Cooperative Agreement DE-FC26-1NT41151

3 6 Comparison of terrestrial carbon mitigation options in the northeast by: Walker, S.M., S. Grimland, N. Sampson, B. Sohngen, J. Winsten, J., and S. Brown. Winrock International Table of Contents 6.1 Executive Summary Introduction Results of Comparison of all Land Management Options References: List of Tables Table 6-1. Area weighted average marginal costs, $/t CO 2 e, for all land management options (negative values indicate that the activity would potentially generate profits over the cycle) Table 6-2. Potential emission reductions (t CO2e) per state at marginal costs below $7/t CO2e for various land management options (at 2 yrs for agricultural land and permanently for forest land) Table 6-3. Summary of potential and amount of emission reductions area available at various price points for all land management options (at 2 yrs for agricultural land and permanently for forest land) Table 6-4. Area weighted average carbon dioxide sequestration/emissions reduction equivalence (t CO2e/acre) for 2 year time period for each agricultural land management option and permanent conversion for forest lands Table 6-5. Estimated area of land (in acres) required to attain different amounts of CO 2 e benefits for each land management option (based on 2 year period on agricultural lands, and permanent land management change in forest lands) Table 6-6. Maximum potential estimated tons of CO 2 e sequestered for each land management option (based on 2 year period on agricultural lands, and permanent land management change in forest lands). 7 Table 6-7. Area weighted average marginal costs, $/t CO 2 e, for all land management options (negative values indicate that the activity would potentially generate profits over the cycle) Table 6-8. Summary of potential and amount of emission reductions area available at various price points for all land management options... 1 List of Figures Figure 6-1. Overview of land management options compared... 1 Figure 6-2. Land management option on agricultural or forest land with largest potential t CO 2 e at various price points (at 2 yrs for agricultural land and permanently for forest land) Figure 6-3. The potential quantity of t CO 2 e at each marginal cost below $2/t CO 2 e for each a county (at 2 yrs for agricultural land and permanently for forest land) Figure 6-4. Overview of land management options examined Figure 6-5. Counties showing the management option with the largest potential t CO 2 e for: agricultural lands only (left), forest lands only (middle) and all lands combined (right) Figure 6-6. Counties showing the management option with lowest marginal cost ($/ton CO 2 e) for: agricultural lands only (left), forest lands only (middle), and all lands combined (right) Figure 6-7. Potential CO 2 e sequestered per county by afforestation of pasture land at various price points. 11 Figure 6-8. Potential CO 2 e sequestered/emission reduction per county by conversion of cropland to no-till agriculture at various price points Figure 6-9. Amount of potential CO 2 e sequestered per county by restocking understocked forests. 13 Figure 6-1. Amount of potential CO 2 e sequestered per county by extending the rotations of suitable forests. 14 Figure Amount of potential CO 2 e sequestered by county by creating a riparian buffer on suitable forest lands. 15 Figure Land management option on agricultural or forest land with largest potential t CO2e at various price points (at 2 yrs for agricultural land and permanently for forest land) Winrock International - i -

4 Figure Percentage of counties with greatest CO 2 e potential for all land management options at specific price points. Table indicates number of counties that each land management options provides greatest CO 2 e at each price point Figure Scatter plots of the quantity of CO 2 e potentially available after 2 yr for agricultural land and permanently for forest land versus the marginal cost ($/ton CO 2 e) for each management option for all counties in the 11-state region Winrock International - ii -

5 6.1 Executive Summary Changing land management practices can result in increased carbon storage, however the potential magnitude of carbon benefits and marginal costs incurred vary spatially and are dependent on the management option that is implemented. The potential increase in carbons storage and associated marginal costs from a variety of management practices on agricultural and forest lands are compared here for the northeastern states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. This comparison allows for an unbiased presentation of the potential quantity and cost of carbon offsets only, other factors beyond the carbon sequestration potential of a particular land management use are outside the scope of this analysis. Many of the land management options discussed have additional benefits outside of carbon mitigation; however, these are not the focus of this analysis and are excluded from discussion. Consideration and analysis related to environmental co-benefits of afforestation activities was presented in Part 5 of this report. Agricultural and forested lands dominate the landscape and provide large areas where current practices could be altered, resulting in increased carbon sequestration or reduced carbon emissions (Figure 6-1). The analysis was performed at a county level of resolution. Although forested lands contain higher carbon stocks than agricultural lands, the current land use practices on forest lands generally have goals besides maximizing carbon sequestration. However, opportunity still exists in forest lands to increase long term carbon stocks through changing practices. Carbon Mitigation Strategies Agricultural Lands (Cropland and Pasture Land) Forest Lands No-till Non-cultivated Crops Restocking Understocked Stands 5 yr Rotation Extension Riparian buffer Figure 6-1. Overview of land management options compared of agricultural lands can potentially sequester the highest amount of CO 2 e per unit area (average 57 t CO 2 e/acre after 2 years). Additionally, beyond 2 years, planted trees will continue to accumulate CO 2 e as compared to the conversion of agriculture lands to no-till and non-cultivated crops (such as hay, pasture or wildlife cover) which result in a new steady-state of carbon stocks in about 2 years (average of 11 and 14 t CO 2 e/acre respectively). Although lower than agricultural land options, restocking of understocked forest stands can potentially sequester, over the long term, more carbon (9 t CO 2 e/acre) than rotation extension (5 t CO 2 e/acre) or riparian buffers (4 t CO 2 e/acre). Because of the higher sequestration rates per area, afforestation requires the least area of land to sequester a given amount of CO 2 e and can potentially supply the greatest amount of sequestered carbon for the northeast region. The analysis considered the effects of afforesting all available agricultural lands; a scenario that is recognized as unilikely and not desireable. None-the-less this analysis was conducted to demonstrate the ultimate potential of carbon sequestration from this activity. Within 2 years, it is estimated that 1.2 billion tons CO 2 e could be sequestered from afforestation of agriculture lands. In contrast, forest management alteration could lead to a maximum carbon accumulation of 14.6 million tons CO 2 e. Marginal costs vary spatially for each land management option with most options spanning a large range of marginal costs (Table 6-1). has higher marginal costs than other land management options because it requires cessation of agricultural production, and therefore has higher opportunity costs. Of the options on agricultural lands, no-till has the lowest marginal costs. Overall, restocking understocked stands has the lowest marginal costs with the majority of counties having negative marginal costs, indicating that switching to this land management practices would potentially create profits. The Winrock International - 1 -

6 formation of riparian buffers has the highest marginal costs in the forested areas due to higher opportunity costs. Table 6-1. Area weighted average marginal costs, $/t CO 2 e, for all land management options (negative values indicate that the activity would potentially generate profits over the cycle). Agricultural Lands Forest Lands of Cropland of Pasture No-till Noncultivated Crops Restocking Understocked Stands 5 year Rotation Extension Riparian Buffer Average Range , The land management option that provides the greatest amount of CO 2 e at a particular price varies across the region (Figure 6-2). Restocking of understocked forest stands and extending rotations in forest lands provide the lowest cost option with the greatest potential carbon mitigation for most counties in the region. Generally, land management on agricultural lands only is the least expensive option in counties where there is little forest land available for management alterations. Many counties in the region have no potential to provide CO 2 e at a $7/t CO 2 e price point. < $7/ t CO 2 e Land Use No-Till 5 yr Rotation Extension Restocking under-stocked stands Non-cultivated crops of Pasture Riparian Buffers N/A < $1/ t CO 2 e Figure 6-2. Land management option on agricultural or forest land with largest potential t CO 2 e at various price points (at 2 yrs for agricultural land and permanently for forest land). The state of Maine has a carbon mitigation potential of over 12.8 million tons CO 2 e at marginal costs less than $7/t CO 2 e with a combination of afforestation of pasture land, restocking understocked stands, and increasing forest rotations (Table 6-3). Where as, in Maryland almost 475, acres of agricultural land could potentially be converted to non-cultivated crops at a price point of $7/t CO 2 e resulting in 5.6 million t CO 2 e. Significant opportunities also exist in New York and Pennsylvania with the restocking of understocked stands at marginal costs below $7/t CO 2 e. Winrock International - 2 -

7 Table 6-2. Potential emission reductions (t CO2e) per state at marginal costs below $7/t CO2e for various land management options (at 2 yrs for agricultural land and permanently for forest land). Agricultural Lands Forest Lands Restocking Understocked Stands 5 year Rotation Extension At higher marginal costs, afforestation can provide substantially greater amounts of carbon benefits than other land management options. However, there is only one county with marginal costs below $4/t CO 2 e for the afforestation of cropland (Table 6-3). of pastureland has lower marginal costs with several counties in New York and Maine having marginal costs below $2/t CO 2 e. At $4/t CO 2 e afforestation of pasture lands has the potential to sequester over.2 billion tons CO 2 e. About half of the total carbon mitigation potential resulting from the conversion to non-cultivated crops on agricultural land is estimated to have marginal costs below $7/t CO 2 e while about 7% of the total mitigation potential of restocking forest standing and extending rotations have marginal costs below $7/t CO 2 e. Table 6-3. Summary of potential and amount of emission reductions area available at various price points for all land management options (at 2 yrs for agricultural land and permanently for forest land). Agricultural Lands Forest Lands of Cropland of Pasture No-till of Cropland of Pasture Notill Riparian Buffer Connecticut 46, Delaware 227, Maine 7,89, 1,889, 4,963, Maryland 5,657, Massachusetts 128, New Hampshire 181, 551, New Jersey 916, 615, New York 268, 1,322, 2,353, 19, Pennsylvania 4,97, 28, Rhode Island Vermont 893, 553, All States 8 million 6.6 million 1 million 8.4 million 137, Noncultivated Crops Noncultivated Crops t CO 2 e Restocking Understocked Stands 5 year Rotation Extension Riparian Buffer < $7/t CO 2 e 8 million 6.6 million 1 million 8.4 million 137, < $1/t CO 2 e 8 million 1.2 million 6.6 million 1.8 million 11 million 143, < $2/t CO 2 e 21 million 32 million 7.6 million 12.9 million 11.6 million 21, < $4/t CO 2 e 116, 215 million 33 million 13 million 14.3 million 11.8 million 49, area (acres) < $7/t CO 2 e 169, 55, 1 million 1.4 million 79, < $1/t CO 2 e 169, 11, 55, 1 million 1.9 million 87, < $2/t CO 2 e 351, 5.7 million 636, 1.3 million 2.1 million 123, < $4/t CO 2 e million 5.7 million 1 million 1.5 million 2.2 million 193, In summary, several states have a large carbon mitigation potential through terrestrial land management alteration (Figure 6-3). Maine has multiple land management options with low marginal costs. In New Winrock International - 3 -

8 $ $ 2 5 $ 5 $ 7 5 $ 1 $ $ 1 5 $ $ 2 $ $ 2 5 $ Part 6. Comparison of terrestrial carbon mitigation options in the northeast York, New Jersey, and Vermont large potential exists for restocking understocked stands while in Maryland conversion to non-cultivated crops provides a good opportunity. million t CO2e Connecticut 1..5 Delaware note different scale Maine. $ $5 $1 $15 $2. $ $5 $1 $15 $2 $ $5 $1 $15 $2 2. Maryland note different scale 1. Massachusetts 1. New Hampshire million t CO2e $ $5 $1 $15 $2. $ $5 $1 $15 $2. $ $5 $1 $15 $2 1. New Jersey 1. New York 2. note different scale Pennsylvania million t CO2e $ $5 $1 $15 $2. $ $5 $1 $15 $2. $ $5 $1 $15 $2 1. Rhode Island 1. Vermont of Cropland million t CO2e $ $5 $1 $15 $ $ $5 $1 $15 $2 of Pasture No-till Permanent Vegetation Restocking Understocked Stands 5 year Rotation Extension Riparian buffer Figure 6-3. The potential quantity of t CO 2 e at each marginal cost below $2/t CO 2 e for each a county (at 2 yrs for agricultural land and permanently for forest land). Winrock International - 4 -

9 6.2 Introduction Before initiating a particular strategy of carbon sequestration/emissions reductions management options for agricultural and forest lands, the effectiveness of each option needs be evaluated in terms of the quantity of carbon potentially available and its marginal cost. In this section, the potential CO 2 e gain, available land area, and marginal costs of each of the land management strategies are compared, providing the necessary information to inform the choice of any given strategy. This comparison allows for an unbiased presentation of the potential quantity and cost of carbon benefits only, other factors beyond the carbon sequestration potential of a particular land management use are outside the scope of this analysis. Scope of comparison Carbon mitigation strategies were analyzed for both existing agricultural and forest lands, and the potential supply of CO 2 e benefits from these strategies are compared (Figure 6-4). The states within the analysis are: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The analysis was performed at a county level. On agricultural lands, the land management options compared include: afforesting existing agricultural lands, changing land management to no-till but continuing crop production, and altering crop production to noncultivated crops (such as hay, pasture or wildlife cover). Although the mitigation potential for biomass energy was estimated (Section 3C), the approach and data are not as well developed and not comparable to the other options thus they will not be discussed further in this section. Restocking understocked stands, increasing rotations, and increasing the riparian buffer are the three forest practices compared here. The analysis for increasing rotations was only performed in the states Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont. Each of the land management options is compared in total and spatially across the region, and the major trends and patterns highlighted (more details on each option are provided in the respective sections of the overall report). Potential sequestration/emissions reductions and associated costs vary spatially, and therefore by comparing each option on a county level, the most cost effective approach for a region can be elucidated. The detailed analyses for each management options on existing agricultural lands were examined at various points in time, however, for the purposes of this comparison, only data for a 2 year period are shown. Carbon continues to be sequestered in afforestation activities for longer time periods (for more than 1-2 yr), whereas for conversion of cropland to no-till cultivation or non-cultivated crops, carbon sequestration ceases. Thus a comparison over longer time frames would produce slightly different comparative results for activities on crop lands. For the forestry sector, data presented are based on the assumption of a permanent contract meaning that once a land owner changed their management practice, it is assumed that the change would be permanent. Carbon Mitigation Strategies Agricultural Lands (Cropland and Pasture Land) Forest Lands No-till Non-cultivated Crops Biomass Energy Restocking Understocked Stands 5 yr Rotation Extension Riparian buffer Figure 6-4. Overview of land management options examined. 6.3 Results of Comparison of all Land Management Options All of the changes in land management examined here result in carbon dioxide sequestration and in some case reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. Converting agricultural lands to forests has the potential to Winrock International - 5 -

10 accumulate the largest amount of carbon per unit land area (Table 6-4) and over longer time periods, greater quantities would be sequestered. Within the afforestation analysis, changes in other carbon pools such as soil, litter, and deadwood were not included in the analysis but are expected to increase or not decline significantly over time. Conversion to no-till or to non cultivated crops includes carbon sequestration mostly in the soil and fossil fuel emission reductions through altered farming practices. On a per unit area basis, carbon sequestration/emission reduction from conversion of cropland to no-till or to pasture is small, and about a quarter or less of that for afforestation, and the amount is unlikely to increase any further because the soil carbon pool will reach a new steady state at about 2 years. Carbon sequestration from restocking poorly stocked forest stands is also small, ranging from about 1-25% of that for afforestation of agricultural lands and up to half that of no-till or non-cultivated crops (Table 6-1). The analysis for extending rotation of softwood forests in Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont (see Section 4) resulted in an average increase in carbon stocks of 5.4 t CO 2 /ac for a 5 year extension, 6.7 t CO 2 /ac for a 1 year extension, and 9.7 t CO 2 /ac for a 15 year extension. These amounts fell generally within the range of increased carbon stocks found for restocking poorly stocked stands. Permanently setting aside forests in riparian buffers would result in an average increase in carbon stocks on a permanent basis of about 5.5 t CO 2 /ac across the region. Table 6-4. Area weighted average carbon dioxide sequestration/emissions reduction equivalence (t CO 2 e/acre) for 2 year time period for each agricultural land management option and permanent conversion for forest lands. Agricultural Lands Forest Lands No-till Non-cultivated Crops Restocking understocked Stands 5 year Rotation Extension Riparian Buffer Connecticut Delaware Maine Maryland Massachusetts New Hampshire New Jersey New York Pennsylvania Rhode Island Vermont All States Minimum 23 7 <1 1 <1 Maximum The potential carbon sequestration/emission reduction equivalence per unit area can then be used to estimate the amount of land needed to attain a given supply of CO 2 e (Table 6-5). Because the carbon sequestered per unit area for afforestation is high, the area of land needed to result in given quantity of CO 2 e is small compared to other land management activities. Changing management of forests requires the most land to reach a given supply of CO 2 e as expected because on a unit area basis these activities have the lowest potential increase in carbon stocks (Table 6-4). Winrock International - 6 -

11 Table 6-5. Estimated area of land (in acres) required to attain different amounts of CO 2 e benefits for each land management option (based on 2 year period on agricultural lands, and permanent land management change in forest lands). Agricultural Lands ton CO 2 e Noncultivated Management Forest No-till Crops 1, t 177 1, ,3 5, t 885 5,514 3,747 49,63 1, t 1,77 11,28 7,495 66,22 1 million t 17,695 11,281 74, ,52 The estimated maximum potential supply of CO 2 e for the region through afforestation is substantial, due to both the high sequestration per unit area and the large area of agricultural land (Table 6-6). Because afforestation has the greatest per unit area potential, afforestation is the land management option with the largest potential within each county as well (Figure 6-5). If all the agricultural land in the region was afforested, the potential estimated CO 2 e sequestered over 2 years would equal 17% of the 25 greenhouse gas emissions of the United States (Energy Information Administration, USDOE 26). The maximum potentials are considerably lower for other land management options. A scenario in which all agricultural land or forest land is converted to one land management strategy is highly unlikely, and so the total possible maximum is presented only to illustrate the management option s overall maximum capacity. Table 6-6. Maximum potential estimated tons of CO 2 e sequestered for each land management option (based on 2 year period on agricultural lands, and permanent land management change in forest lands). Agricultural Lands Forest Lands of Cropland of Pasture Notill Noncultivated Crops million tons CO 2 e Restocking Understocked Stands 5 year Rotation Extension Riparian Buffer Connecticut Delaware Maine Maryland Massachusetts New Hampshire New Jersey New York Pennsylvania Rhode Island Vermont All States Winrock International - 7 -

12 Agricultural Lands only: Forest Lands only: All Lands: Land Use of Pasture of Cropland Non-cultivated crops No-Till Land Use 5 yr Rotation Extension Restocking under-stocked stands Riparian Buffers N/A Land Use of Pasture of Cropland Restocking under-stocked stan Non-cultivated crops No-Till Figure 6-5. Counties showing the management option with the largest potential t CO 2 e for: agricultural lands only (left), forest lands only (middle) and all lands combined (right). Although afforestation produces the greatest quantity of t CO 2 e, it is not the land management strategy with the lowest marginal costs (Table 6-7). Costs vary substantially by county, and restocking understocked forests and extending forest rotation both provide the option with the lowest overall marginal costs (Figure 6-6). Converting to no-till agriculture, on average, has the lowest marginal costs on agricultural lands because the existing practice does not need to change and thus there is little opportunity cost. For some counties in the more southerly states, conversion to perennial vegetation is the most cost effective management practice. For most of the counties where riparian buffers presents the best option, this is because either there is no other land management option, or because it is a more cost effective option than no-till. Table 6-7. Area weighted average marginal costs, $/t CO 2 e, for all land management options (negative values indicate that the activity would potentially generate profits over the cycle). Agricultural Lands Forest Lands of Cropland of Pasture Notill Noncultivated Crops Restocking Understocked Stands 5 year Rotation Extension Riparian Buffer Connecticut Delaware Maine Maryland Massachusetts New Hampshire New Jersey New York Pennsylvania Winrock International - 8 -

13 of Cropland Agricultural Lands of Pasture Notill Noncultivated Crops Restocking Understocked Stands Forest Lands 5 year Rotation Extension Riparian Buffer Rhode Island Vermont All States Minimum , Maximum Agricultural Lands only: Forest Lands only: All Lands: Land Use No-Till Non-cultivated crops Land Use Restocking under-stocked stands Riparian Buffers 5 yr Rotation Extension N/A Land Use No-Till Restocking under-stocked stands 5 yr Rotation Extension Riparian Buffers Non-cultivated crops Figure 6-6. Counties showing the management option with lowest marginal cost ($/ton CO 2 e) for: agricultural lands only (left), forest lands only (middle), and all lands combined (right). At specified price points, the maximum amount of land economically available and the total maximum potential sequestered t CO 2 e for each land management option was calculated (Table 6-8). Conversion of pasture land to forests or cropland to non-cultivated crops and two forest management options appear to be economically attractive land management options at prices as low as $7/t CO 2 e. Conversion of cropland to forests appears to be the least economic option as only a small quantity of CO 2 e would be available even if prices reached $4/ton. Winrock International - 9 -

14 Table 6-8. Summary of potential and amount of emission reductions area available at various price points for all land management options Crop Management Forest Management Price Points Cropland Pasture No-till Noncultivated Crops Restocking Understocked Stands 5 yr Rotation Extension Riparian Buffers t CO 2 e < $7/t CO 2 e 8 million 6.6 million 1 million 8.4 million 137, < $1/t CO 2 e 8 million 1.2 million 6.6 million 1.8 million 11 million 143, < $2/t CO 2 e 21 million 32 million 7.6 million 12.9 million 11.6 million 21, < $4/t CO 2 e 116, 215 million 33 million 13 million 14.3 million 11.8 million 49, area (acres) < $7/t CO 2 e 169, 55, 1 million 1.4 million 79, < $1/t CO 2 e 169, 11, 55, 1 million 1.9 million 87, < $2/t CO 2 e 351, 5.7 million 636, 1.3 million 2.1 million 123, < $4/t CO 2 e million 5.7 million 1 million 1.5 million 2.2 million 193, The amount of carbon sequestered on existing lands by the various management options cannot be summed to arrive at a total potential because the land under consideration could be the same parcels. As the analysis was done at the county scale of resolution, it was not possible to separate the considered lands of each option. However, estimates for one land management option on agricultural land and one option on forest lands can be summed as these will be different land areas. It is estimated that there is only one county (York, ME) with marginal costs below $4/t CO 2 e for afforestation of cropland (map not shown). Most of the sequestered CO 2 by afforesting pasture lands at marginal costs of less than $4/t are located in counties in Maine, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont (Figure 6-7). The majority of these counties have the potential to sequester more than 1 million t CO 2 over a 2 yr period if prices reached $4/t. Winrock International - 1 -

15 $2/ t CO 2 e t CO2e (m illions) < > 9 $4/ t CO 2 e Figure 6-7. Potential CO 2 e sequestered per county by afforestation of pasture land at various price points. Conversion of cropland from conventional to no-till cultivation provides some potential carbon benefits if prices were <$1/t CO 2 e in several counties in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont (Figure 6-8). However, if prices were up to $4/t CO 2 e, croplands in practically every county in the region could provide up to 15-3 thousand t CO 2 e, with higher quantities in New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware. Winrock International

16 t CO2e (thousands) < > 3 $1/ t CO 2 e $2/ t CO 2 e $4/ t CO 2 e Figure 6-8. Potential CO 2 e sequestered/emission reduction per county by conversion of cropland to no-till agriculture at various price points Carbon benefits from conversion of agricultural lands to permanent vegetation are located mostly in 1-2 counties (fewer counties involved at lower prices) in the states of Maryland and New Jersey (no figure shown see section 3B). The amount of CO 2 e sequestered/emissions reduced ranges between million t per county with higher quantities produced when prices reach $4/t CO 2 e. Many counties in Maine and Pennsylvania provide opportunities for carbon sequestration by re-stocking poorly stocked forests, often at negative marginal costs (Figure 6-9). If prices were as high as $4/t CO 2 e, practically every county in Maine and Pennsylvania and several counties in New York would be able to supply considerable quantities of CO 2 e (2 to > 4 thousand tons). Winrock International

17 $7/ t CO 2 e $1/ t CO 2 e t CO2e (thousands) < > 4 $2/ t CO 2 e $4/ t CO 2 e Figure 6-9. Amount of potential CO 2 e sequestered per county by restocking understocked forests. Considerable opportunities exist in Maine for extending rotation of forest harvests by 5 year for additional carbon sequestration at all price points, with most counties providing up to 3 to >4 thousand t CO 2 e (Figure 6-1). This is not only due to the large size of the counties in Maine, but this state is dominated by softwood forests for which this management option is best suited. Additional quantities of CO 2 e are also potentially available in many counties in New Hampshire and Vermont at all price points. At the higher prices, several counties in New York have the potential so supply CO 2 e, about 1-2 thousand t per county. Winrock International

18 t CO2e (thousands) < > 4 < $7/ t CO 2 e < $1/ t CO 2 e < $2/ t CO 2 e < $4/ t CO 2 e Figure 6-1. Amount of potential CO 2 e sequestered per county by extending the rotations of suitable forests. The creation of riparian buffers on suitable forest lands provide small quantities of CO 2 e, about 1,- 2, t in general, mostly in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts and a couple of counties in New York (Figure 6-11). Winrock International

19 t CO2e < 1, 1,1-2, 2,1-3, 3,1-4, > 4, < $7/ t CO 2 e < $1/ t CO 2 e < $2/ t CO 2 e < $4/ t CO 2 e Figure Amount of potential CO 2 e sequestered by county by creating a riparian buffer on suitable forest lands. At the $7/t CO 2 e price point, extending forest rotation and restocking poorly stocked stands are the two options that provide a substantial quantity of CO 2 e in the majority of counties in the region (Figures 6-12 and 6-13). Many counties in the region have no potential to provide CO 2 e at the $7/t CO 2 e price point. If the price increased to $2/t CO 2 e, conversion to no-till agriculture can provide larger quantities than forest for many counties, although extending forest rotation by 5 yr still dominates in several counties. At $4//t CO 2 e, afforestation of pasture lands starts to dominate, and at this price point all management options are represented. Winrock International

20 Land Use No-Till 5 yr Rotation Extension Restocking under-stocked stands Non-cultivated crops of Pasture Riparian Buffers N/A < $7/ t CO 2 e < $1/ t CO 2 e < $2/ t CO 2 e < $4/ t CO 2 e Figure Land management option on agricultural or forest land with largest potential t CO2e at various price points (at 2 yrs for agricultural land and permanently for forest land). Winrock International

21 1% Percentage of counties with most CO2e potential in land management option 8% 6% 4% 2% % <$7 / t CO2e <$1 / t CO2e <$2 / t CO2e <$4 / t CO2e None of Pasture 6 43 Non-cultivated crops No-Till Restocking under-stocked stands yr Rotation Extension Riparian Buffers Figure Percentage of counties with greatest CO 2 e potential for all land management options at specific price points. Table indicates number of counties that each land management options provides greatest CO 2 e at each price point It is clear from the scatterplots of quantity of CO 2 e potentially available versus the marginal cost that New York and Maine can provide the most carbon across all management options at some of the lowest costs (Figure 6-14). Pennsylvania and Maryland have the potential to provide substantial quantities of CO 2 e, but at high costs (greater than about $75/t CO 2 e). As expected, the smaller states (Delaware and Rhode Island) or the highly developed states (New Jersey) have few opportunities to provide carbon sequestration benefits at any reasonable price. Winrock International

22 $ $ 2 5 $ 5 $ 7 5 $ 1 $ $ 1 5 $ $ 2 $ $ 2 5 $ Part 6. Comparison of terrestrial carbon mitigation options in the northeast Total CO2e (million tons CO2e) Connecticut Delaware note different scale Maine $ $25 $5 $75 $1 $125 $15 $ $25 $5 $75 $1 $125 $15 $ $25 $5 $75 $1 $125 $15 1 Maryland 1 Massachusetts 1 New Hampshire Total CO2e (million tons CO2e) $ $25 $5 $75 $1 $125 $15 $ $25 $5 $75 $1 $125 $15 $ $25 $5 $75 $1 $125 $15 Total CO2e (million tons CO2e) New Jersey note different scale New York note different scale Pennsylvania Total CO2e (million tons CO2e) $ $25 $5 $75 $1 $125 $15 Rhode Island $ $25 $5 $75 $1 $125 $ $ $25 $5 $75 $1 $125 $15 Vermont $ $25 $5 $75 $1 $125 $15 $ $25 $5 $75 $1 $125 $15 of Cropland of Pasture Land No-till Non-cultivated Crops 5 year Rotation Extension Restocking Understocked Stands Riparian buffer Figure Scatter plots of the quantity of CO 2 e potentially available after 2 yr for agricultural land and permanently for forest land versus the marginal cost ($/ton CO 2 e) for each management option for all counties in the 11-state region. Winrock International

23 6.4 References: 26. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 25. Energy Information Administration, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, U.S. Department of Energy. Washington, DC Winrock International